Theater of the Impressed: The Brazilian Stage in the Nineteenth Century Ross G. Forman Brazilian theater scholarship has traditionally regarded the nineteenth century as a dead zone, a period in which the theater was dominated by visiting foreign productions or slavish imitations of foreign methods and styles. This essay, however, seeks to challenge this assumption and to suggest how theater entered into the project of nation-building by providing a forum for discussion—among the elites—of topics such as slavery, the corruption of politics, the tension between the metropolitan and the rural, and resistance to the economic imperialism and gunboat diplomacy of European nations such as Britain. Whatever the aesthetic merits of the products of Brazilian theater at this time, and however twentieth-century Brazilian theater has been seen as disembodied from a historical corpus, the role theater played in the field of cultural production during the nineteenth century merits recuperation. The prominence of plays with abolitionist themes, such as Joao Juliao Federado Gonnett’s O Marajo Virtuoso, ou os Horrores do Trafico da Escravatura, an historical drama exploring the horrors of the Middle Passage and partly extolling the virtues of the Portuguese, Brazilians, and British in fighting the cruel Spaniards who promote the slave trade, suggests how invested Brazilian theater of the period was in the issues of the day, as well as its implication in the liberal traditions of the urban elites, whose interests often conflicted with those of the landowners supporting the slavocracy. The nineteenth-century Brazilian stage remains relatively unknown to modern audiences, and critical appraisal of it as debased and dated has helped obscure its revival. From Brazilian scholarship—such as Manuel Bandeiras A BriefHistory ofBrazilian Literature (1958), which argues that there was no 92 PORTUGUESE LITERARY & CULTURAL STUDIES 4/5 dramatic tradition at all in the country, and J. Galante Sousas canonical O Teatro no Brasil (1960)—to scholarship published in North America and Europe—such as The Cambridge History of Latin American Literature (1996) —Brazilian theater consistently plays second fiddle to other literary forms and nearly always suffers under the labels of “derivative” and “imitative.” 1 Nineteenth-century Brazilian theater, in fact, is the example that has come to serve as the epitome of Silvio Romero’s statement that we Brazilians are a highly mediocre people; and I do not know whether the anathema of the British historian exaggerates things a bit in saying, when describing our great natural resources, ‘much is the flow and abundance of life by which Brazil is marked from all other countries of the earth. But amid all the .’ 2 pomp and splendour of Nature, no place is left for Man Or as Machado de Assis elegantly puts it, writing in 1873, “There is no Brazilian theater today, no national plays are being written, and it is even more rare for a national play to be performed... Today when public taste has reached the ultimate level of decadence and perversion, there is no hope for anyone who feels they have the vocation to compose serious works of art.” 3 More recently, scholars have looked to the Brazilian stage in an effort to construct a history of the flourishing scene of the late-twentieth century and to insert Brazilian theater into a more general literary teleology of nationalism and development. Edwaldo Cafezeiro and Carmem Gadelha, for instance, in their suggestively titled Historia do Teatro Brasileiro: Um Percurso de Anchieta a Nelson Rodrigues (1996), open their work with the statement, “We are studying, from the point of view of dramaturgy, the political realities that Brazilian society produced in its fight for liberation. In this respect, the story of Brazilian theater traveled a parallel path to that of Brazilian history.” 4 This Brazilian theater was inherently national and nationalistic in that, whatever its form and wherever the actors performing hailed from, the staging of dramatic spectacles evolved along with the nation and began at the moment of decolonization. As Chichorro da Gama explains in Atraves do Teatro Brasileiro (1907), “Up to the time of Independence, Brazil did not have what could be called a theater of its own.” 5 Although this teleology may not be as straight-forward as Cafezeiro, Gadelha, Chichorro da Gama, and others imply, here I want to isolate the mid to late nineteenth-century as a crucial moment for Brazilian dramatics because of its absorption into, or implication a BRAZIL 2001 SPRING/FALL 2000 93 in, related projects of nationalism. These projects may lack historical FORMAN continuity both with the past and the future of the Brazilian stage, but they G. suggest that the importance of theater in nineteenth-century Brazil has been ROSS downplayed unnecessarily. These projects embrace the literary, in the development of Romanticism and Naturalism (Jose de Alencar, for instance, was both a novelist and playwright); the political, in the royal patronage of certain kinds of theatricals; the economic, in the expansion of venues and forms both within the capital of Rio de Janeiro and in such regional centers as Salvador da Bahia, Recife, and, later, Sao Paulo; and even the architectural, in the construction of theaters as part of the overall remodeling of Rio as a national capital and in conjunction with the flourishing era of the “tropical belle epoque.” Moreover, while not denying that much Brazilian theater of this period was derivative or performed by foreign actors and amateurs (even including visiting officers of the British Royal Navy, who in the 1 860s gave a performance attended by the emperor and his family), I follow Homi Bhabha and others in suggesting that mimicry itself can be a powerful mode of resistance and reconstitution, an enabling mechanism for the staging of uniquely Brazilian concepts of subjectivity. 6 In his seminal work Ligoes Dramaticas Caetano, the most famous , Joao dramaturge of the nineteenth century, explains the importance of theater to a nation that is developing both its resources and its sense of identity. He argues for a state-supported theater, performing in Portuguese, that will serve as an outlet for local talent and as a corrective to the standard imported European product performed in Italian or French or translated into (the lesser language of) Portuguese. 7 Caetano’s first and foremost “lesson” is the premise that one can tell the state of a nation by its theater. Like Augusto Boal, Caetano credits theater with radical powers to instruct audiences in particular ways, and thus to construct citizenship; however, unlike Boal, he conceives of this citizenship in normative bourgeois terms: “Theater, when well-organized and well-directed, ought to be a real model for education, capable of inspiring youth to patriotism, morality, and good manners; and, either for this or other reasons, cultivated nations have done their best to perfect it...” 8 Caetano therefore calls for the government to provide funding for a school, where actors can be trained to fulfill this educational role— school which is to do for Brazilian theater what the Brazilian government ostensibly is doing in other realms: to effect “rapid progress, as is its due,” and to achieve the autonomy and the “certain level of perfection” that other 94 PORTUGUESE LITERARY & CULTURAL STUDIES 4/5 artistic forms have attained under the Empire. It is an appeal, of course, for financial support—and one which ultimately failed. Yet it is also an appeal to a notion of positivism and a theory of development under an enlightened monarch under which Brazil stands to overcome its inferiority complex with respect to Europe and take its rightful place among the world’s great nations. Caetano concludes his work with a “Minute about the Necessity of a Dramatic School to Train People Who Dedicate Themselves to a Theatrical Career, Also Proving the Utility of a National Theater As Well As the Defects and Decay of the Current Situation,” which implicitly ties the fate of the theater to the fate of the nation, suggesting that a country which does not publicly support theater is in danger of the decline and decadence that forms the binary opposite to the state’s motto and vaunted goal of “order and progress.” 9 Historians often have followed Caetano by conceiving of him as the key force behind the emergence of indigenous theater in nineteenth-century Brazil: as the first director to create a fully Brazilian troupe, to encourage and stage works by Brazilian intellectuals, and to interpret in a truly original way 10 the works of foreign writers such as Shakespeare. His company made its debut in Niteroi, a suburb of Rio de Janeiro, in the 1830s with the now-lost O Principe Amante da Liberdade ou Independencia da Escocia (Cafezeiro and Gadelha 116). Caetano also owes his place in history to his successful promotion of the playwright Jose Carlos Martins Pena, the “Brazilian Moliere” 11 heralded as the most important national playwright of the period. Martins Pena’s works are credited with being the first to open a space for Brazilian drama on stage, an opening on which subsequent authors were then able to capitalize. Critics have also conceived of the failure of Caetano’s bid to open a school and provide a permanent venue for national theater as a signal of Brazil’s continued concession of cultural authority to the West and of the ultimate triumph of imitation over innovation. 12 According to this line of reasoning, Caetano was, in